How to defend your Faith

[quatona]

It's literally true that you have nothing to say.

Well, you seem to have a lot to respond to nothing.

You also don't say you're an atheist, but you have that slightly snarky thing in your user title.

Your point being?

Sometimes when people hide things about themselves it's because they feel that way about them.

Oftentimes, when people are insecure they are particularly vocal and affirmative.

I don't think that's the case with you,

Then why did you ask, in the first place?

I suspect it's because if you make your beliefs known then you are vulnerable;

As I said, you are in contest mode, and I don´t think that personal beliefs (and particularly personal relationships) should be talked about in contest mode. It´s what your bible tries to tell you: I won´t "cast my pearl before swine".

you may be asked to defend them.

You make it sound as if unreasonable requests were hard to ignore or refuse, or something.

That statement doesn't make sense to me.

It´s psychology 101, but nevermind.

Well I do have some genuine interest, but you're right that I ask in order to try and put you in contest mode. I anticipated that you'd shrink from the challenge and you did.

That wasn´t hard to anticipate - it´s how I have been recommending to go about one´s personal beliefs and personal relationships from the beginning of this thread, after all.

But remember that's part of what the OP was about - we Christians are frequently put in contest mode (and ridiculed) by being open about our beliefs.

You "are put..." by what you do?
Actually, the "being open about your beliefs" wasn´t part of the OP (at least not explicitly). It made it sound like you guys were challenged about your faith out of the blue. That exactly why I started talking about it.

Also, I recall there was a thread made by a well known member here (an atheist), and the point of the thread was basically that "if Christians are unable or unwilling to share the most personal details of their relationship with God, it's because they're lying about it".

And I keep saying the opposite: Your personal relationships are none of my business, as long as you handle them accordingly. (If, however, you insist that they are of any relevance for me, I will need some evidence. Also, if you put them up on a discussion board as part of an argument, don´t be surprised they are going to be discussed.)

Not some people, all people. Atheist societies, pagan societies, all societies have rules.

Undoubtedly.
However, I am not a society, and you were talking about me and other individuals. Also, I wasn´t contradicting the statement that societies have rules, but your assumptions as to what those rules are informed by.

The more atheist part of your country used to have a very strict rule about how far west you were allowed to walk.

...and you think this rule was informed by lack of belief in Gods? Or are you just trying to randomly associate negative stuff with atheism because you are in contest mode? (The good old "offense is the best defense"?)

My experience is very different. I see it all the time on CF. Right now I'm involved in a thread where I said that the universe looks fine-tuned for life, and someone responded "No it's not. You have the burden of proof to show that it is."

Firstly, I already said more than once that a discussion board isn´t real life.
Secondly, I don´t think you have to defend what the universe looks like to you, any more than you have to defend that your wife looks beautiful to you. (However, if you tried to make an argument based on your personal impressions...that would be an entirely different situation).
Thirdly, and again: Personal impressions and particularly personal relationships (and even more personal relationships for whose existence we have no intersubjective evidence) don´t lend themselves to discussions in contest mode. Trying to do that just causes a lot of frustration to all persons involved.
Fourthly, I think you have to decide if you want your assertions to be considered truth claims about reality (in which case they are naturally met with scrutinity), or if you want them to be considered personal statements of your personal relationships (which might mean they aren´t met with the attention you would like them to be met with).

 

[quatona]

You are most welcome!

I wish I could help with what Matt is trying to explain, but I'm not sure I could do a better job. He's right though.

Scripture was never intended to hammer people over the head with. It was meant to teach Truth to those who would understand it. I wish I could think of a good illustration or analogy, but it escapes me just now.

Well, the esoteric nature of the bible isn´t a good explanation for the way non-believers are described or looked upon. That´s why I feel it doesn´t answer my question.
What, however, makes some sense to me is your explanation that the negative connotation of the term "swine" in the metaphore isn´t part of the message. I am not entirely sure that the choice of words "us - pearls, them - swine" is entirely accidental (and not indicative of a certain mindset), but I can easily accept that it isn´t the core of the message intended here.

 

[isilmë]

Actually, the "being open about your beliefs" wasn´t part of the OP (at least not explicitly). It made it sound like you guys were challenged about your faith out of the blue.

Just to give an example as to when I've been questioned; someone saw that I was wearing a necklace with a cross on it and that was all it took.

I’ve never tried to push my faith on anyone. Like I’ve said earlier in this thread, I tend to keep it to myself, but sometimes it’s impossible.

I don’t mind people asking, as long as it’s not to ridicule/hurt me. I’ve been looking for ways to explain aspects of my faith that ‘unbelievers’ have a hard time accepting and I want to explain it in their ‘language’. It’s no easy thing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, the esoteric nature of the bible isn´t a good explanation for the way non-believers are described or looked upon. That´s why I feel it doesn´t answer my question.

it's because the Scripture has a context, to try to read the Scripture apart from the context in which it was written is not something one should do with any work. for the most part, the Bible is not as esoteric as folks make it out to be.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, the esoteric nature of the bible isn´t a good explanation for the way non-believers are described or looked upon. That´s why I feel it doesn´t answer my question.
What, however, makes some sense to me is your explanation that the negative connotation of the term "swine" in the metaphore isn´t part of the message. I am not entirely sure that the choice of words "us - pearls, them - swine" is entirely accidental (and not indicative of a certain mindset), but I can easily accept that it isn´t the core of the message intended here.

Just one tiny point ... it's not "us" = pearls. It is the truths we have received that are the pearls. Without them, we are swine as well.

The pearls are the real focus.

And I would agree with Matt that it's not meant to be so esoteric. But it has both cultural and contextual meaning, and without understanding that, much will be misunderstood.

We see that in MANY Christian individuals today who take the Scriptures, but reject the context. It's difficult to find even a few "essentials" that all would agree on out of thousands of possible points.

 

[quatona]

Just one tiny point ... it's not "us" = pearls.

Yes, of course. That was an unprecise wording on my part. My apologies.

It is the truths we have received that are the pearls.

I can relate. I think of some of my convictions as "pearls" or "nuggets" or "treasures" myself.

And I would agree with Matt that it's not meant to be so esoteric. But it has both cultural and contextual meaning, and without understanding that, much will be misunderstood.

Yes, sure.
Then it mightn´t be a good idea to use them outside this group of which you think they have this required understanding (which, as I understand the word, is the very description of "esoteric").

We see that in MANY Christian individuals today who take the Scriptures, but reject the context. It's difficult to find even a few "essentials" that all would agree on out of thousands of possible points.

Yes, maybe I should take that fact as comforting.

 

[quatona]

Thanks, Isilmë, for your explanations and elaborations.

Just to give an example as to when I've been questioned; someone saw that I was wearing a necklace with a cross on it and that was all it took.

Well, I think that wearing an ideological symbol openly isn´t nothing. Actually, it´s quite a strong statement and message. It tells people upfront (and before they have even asked) what you identify with. I can´t help understanding it as "This is the most important thing about me, and I want everyone to know it."
Don´t misunderstand me: There´s nothing inherently wrong about doing it - but it sure will provoke thoughts and reactions in people (and, quite obviously, it´s meant to do).
Now, here´s the rub: Imo, it´s not a good idea. People will not react (silently or openly) to you (or to your convictions), but they will necessarily react to their experiences with this ideology - what they know about it, the branch of it they have had encounters with, and to former protagonists of that ideology they have gotten to know. They will also react to their own preconceptions. (And that´s natural, because a. the open demonstration provokes a reaction, and b. they can´t react to you because all you have given them is a symbol.)
The good part is: In case they start tackling this ideology, you can be sure they aren´t attacking you or your personal conviction. They are attacking an abstractum that probably hasn´t much to do with your personal convictions.

People do that a lot, and many people find debating abstracta instead of actually trying to understand the person opposite quite comfortable, even when they have actual statements from this person. Example at hand: Poster C here, who is eager to drag me into the good old Christian vs. atheist debate even though it´s not the topic and even though I am not interested in it, at all. He is in defense mode, he recommends using offense as the best defense, he is thinking in terms of fight, of vulnerability etc. etc., even though I didn´t attack or discuss his faith at all. It´s pretty safe to say that in the end he will file our conversation as just another example of being attacked and ridiculed by a non-believer.

I’ve never tried to push my faith on anyone. Like I’ve said earlier in this thread, I tend to keep it to myself, but sometimes it’s impossible.

Well, e.g. wearing a crucifix appears to be neither pushing your faith on someone nor trying to keep it to yourself.

I´m just wondering why people who hold a world view that´s mainstream and at the foundations of our Western culture experience themselves as attacked and ridiculed so much - whereas I who holds some pretty outlandish beliefs never encounter such attacks.

I don’t mind people asking, as long as it’s not to ridicule/hurt me.

Again: Maybe it helps that they cannot mean to hurt you - they mean to hurt their own concept of the worldview you are labeling yourself with. Chances are that their concept has little to do with your convictions.

I’ve been looking for ways to explain aspects of my faith that ‘unbelievers’ have a hard time accepting and I want to explain it in their ‘language’. It’s no easy thing.

Yes, that´s not an easy task. When you explain it "in their language" there´s a certain risk that its core, its identity isn´t communicable (plus: you mightn´t even know what "their language" is); and when you explain it "in your language" the message won´t reach them, either.
Which leaves me with the question: Why do you want to explain it to random people, in the first place?
And the second question: Are there possibly better ways of demonstrating the beauty of your views than explaining them in words?

 

[Chesterton]

Your point being?

"Ye shall know them by their postings, not their self-labeling."

Then why did you ask, in the first place?

I said I don't think that's the case. I could be wrong.

As I said, you are in contest mode, and I don´t think that personal beliefs (and particularly personal relationships) should be talked about in contest mode. It´s what your bible tries to tell you: I won´t "cast my pearl before swine".

Never mind. I've figured it out. Your life philosophy is Fight Club and you're just obeying the first two rules, right?

You make it sound as if unreasonable requests were hard to ignore or refuse, or something.

What's unreasonable about the request? I could say your secrecy is unreasonable.

That wasn´t hard to anticipate - it´s how I have been recommending to go about one´s personal beliefs and personal relationships from the beginning of this thread, after all.

But you can't seriously mean that as a general recommendation for everyone. People should only talk about the most important ideas in life with only a few hand-selected friends? No one should write books or study or teach ideas of others?

You "are put..." by what you do?
Actually, the "being open about your beliefs" wasn´t part of the OP (at least not explicitly). It made it sound like you guys were challenged about your faith out of the blue. That exactly why I started talking about it.

What I started talking about was the unfairness of debating with people who have nothing to say - it's like a football game where one side has a goal they have to defend while the other side has no goal to attack. You can't win. Atheists know this which is why they're so insistent on redefining atheism from "I believe there's no God" to "I lack a belief". Yet at the same time they argue as if they believe there's no God. It's disingenuous, among other things.

And I keep saying the opposite: Your personal relationships are none of my business, as long as you handle them accordingly. (If, however, you insist that they are of any relevance for me, I will need some evidence. Also, if you put them up on a discussion board as part of an argument, don´t be surprised they are going to be discussed.)

Okay that's fair enough. When I put something on a discussion board it's because I want it to be discussed. But I'll go back to my original point that there's a matter of intellectual respect involved. I don't respect anyone who tells me my belief is wrong while they are not willing or able to provide an alternate belief. You don't like the "swine" bible verse so you won't like this one either: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God". I was echoing that with my house-building analogy. The pagan or the Muslim, is not a fool in this way. A person's not a fool because we disagree. It's only the atheist, the one who has only unfounded negation to offer who is a fool. And the foolishness is compounded by the fact that they're usually the ones who like to go around talking about how much smarter and rational and scientific they are.

Undoubtedly.
However, I am not a society, and you were talking about me and other individuals. Also, I wasn´t contradicting the statement that societies have rules, but your assumptions as to what those rules are informed by.

I'm an individual too, and I've never tried to make a rule for anyone.

...and you think this rule was informed by lack of belief in Gods? Or are you just trying to randomly associate negative stuff with atheism because you are in contest mode? (The good old "offense is the best defense"?)

It was informed by a lack of belief in God, and we can discuss that if you want to start a new thread somewhere.

Firstly, I already said more than once that a discussion board isn´t real life.
Secondly, I don´t think you have to defend what the universe looks like to you, any more than you have to defend that your wife looks beautiful to you. (However, if you tried to make an argument based on your personal impressions...that would be an entirely different situation).
Thirdly, and again: Personal impressions and particularly personal relationships (and even more personal relationships for whose existence we have no intersubjective evidence) don´t lend themselves to discussions in contest mode. Trying to do that just causes a lot of frustration to all persons involved.
Fourthly, I think you have to decide if you want your assertions to be considered truth claims about reality (in which case they are naturally met with scrutinity), or if you want them to be considered personal statements of your personal relationships (which might mean they aren´t met with the attention you would like them to be met with).

I agree discussion boards and real life can be different. But I think we're talking past each other in that you're talking about why and when a person should be expected to defend their belief, while I'm saying that regardless of what prompts the discussion, the same "rules" should apply to both sides.

People do that a lot, and many people find debating abstracta instead of actually trying to understand the person opposite quite comfortable, even when they have actual statements from this person. Example at hand: Poster C here, who is eager to drag me into the good old Christian vs. atheist debate even though it´s not the topic and even though I am not interested in it, at all. He is in defense mode, he recommends using offense as the best defense, he is thinking in terms of fight, of vulnerability etc. etc., even though I didn´t attack or discuss his faith at all. It´s pretty safe to say that in the end he will file our conversation as just another example of being attacked and ridiculed by a non-believer.

I entered the thread in response to the OP's second post where she mentioned the mocking by atheists who think they're smarter than believers. My thought to her was that she might do what I do when I encounter that on these forums - yes I go on offense and ask for their answer which I know, like you, they don't have or are unwilling to make known. There's nothing actually combative or sneaky about it - if someone tells me I'm wrong I'll ask them to correct me. If they can't, they were foolish for telling me I'm wrong. I'm not actually trying to debate with you here but trying to make that point, although you're not the best one to make it on because it's intended for the snarky types and I think you're usually a pretty nice guy.

 

[quatona]

Never mind. I've figured it out. Your life philosophy is Fight Club and you're just obeying the first two rules, right?

Err, no. The entire "fight" thing is your idea of a conversation, not mine.

But you can't seriously mean that as a general recommendation for everyone.

Well, yes, I can and I do.

People should only talk about the most important ideas in life with only a few hand-selected friends?

I think the operational term so far was "faith", not "idea".

What you seem to be missing is the essential part of what I am trying to say:
If you think of your faith as a "personal relationship", you better not even start having a debate - simply because personal stuff like this doesn´t lend itself to debate.
If, however, you are seeking a debate, you better avoid the argument "faith is a personal relationship", and you better not take attacks on your ideas personally.

What I started talking about was the unfairness of debating with people who have nothing to say - it's like a football game where one side has a goal they have to defend while the other side has no goal to attack. You can't win.

I am aware that you are thinking of these conversations as contests, as fights. I am not, and as long as you insist on playing it this way, we won´t get anywhere.

I don't respect anyone who tells me my belief is wrong while they are not willing or able to provide an alternate belief.

It´s your perfect prerogative to distribute your respect as you see fit.

You don't like the "swine" bible verse

Actually, the way it has been explained to me in this thread I like it quite fine. It´s more like above you were the one who started arguing against the recommendation to hand-select the persons you are talking to about your faith.

so you won't like this one either: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God".

Here, too, I do not like the unnecessarily antagonizing wording (and I don´t like pseudo-poetic stuff like "saying in one´s heart" - apart from the fact that you want to make a point about what people say with their mouthes, since you can´t know what they say "in their heart" ), but I agree with the message: There is no foundation for the assertion that "there is no God".

I was echoing that with my house-building analogy. The pagan or the Muslim, is not a fool in this way. A person's not a fool because we disagree. It's only the atheist, the one who has only unfounded negation to offer who is a fool. And the foolishness is compounded by the fact that they're usually the ones who like to go around talking about how much smarter and rational and scientific they are.

I´m sorry to hear that you meet so many unpleasant people, and that you have so many encounters that prompt you to think of metaphysics as a battle. All the best.

 

[isilmë]

Thanks, Isilmë, for your explanations and elaborations.


Well, I think that wearing an ideological symbol openly isn´t nothing. Actually, it´s quite a strong statement and message. It tells people upfront (and before they have even asked) what you identify with. I can´t help understanding it as "This is the most important thing about me, and I want everyone to know it."
Don´t misunderstand me: There´s nothing inherently wrong about doing it - but it sure will provoke thoughts and reactions in people (and, quite obviously, it´s meant to do).
Now, here´s the rub: Imo, it´s not a good idea. People will not react (silently or openly) to you (or to your convictions), but they will necessarily react to their experiences with this ideology - what they know about it, the branch of it they have had encounters with, and to former protagonists of that ideology they have gotten to know. They will also react to their own preconceptions. (And that´s natural, because a. the open demonstration provokes a reaction, and b. they can´t react to you because all you have given them is a symbol.)
The good part is: In case they start tackling this ideology, you can be sure they aren´t attacking you or your personal conviction. They are attacking an abstractum that probably hasn´t much to do with your personal convictions.

People do that a lot, and many people find debating abstracta instead of actually trying to understand the person opposite quite comfortable, even when they have actual statements from this person. Example at hand: Poster C here, who is eager to drag me into the good old Christian vs. atheist debate even though it´s not the topic and even though I am not interested in it, at all. He is in defense mode, he recommends using offense as the best defense, he is thinking in terms of fight, of vulnerability etc. etc., even though I didn´t attack or discuss his faith at all. It´s pretty safe to say that in the end he will file our conversation as just another example of being attacked and ridiculed by a non-believer.


Well, e.g. wearing a crucifix appears to be neither pushing your faith on someone nor trying to keep it to yourself.

I´m just wondering why people who hold a world view that´s mainstream and at the foundations of our Western culture experience themselves as attacked and ridiculed so much - whereas I who holds some pretty outlandish beliefs never encounter such attacks.


Again: Maybe it helps that they cannot mean to hurt you - they mean to hurt their own concept of the worldview you are labeling yourself with. Chances are that their concept has little to do with your convictions.


Yes, that´s not an easy task. When you explain it "in their language" there´s a certain risk that its core, its identity isn´t communicable (plus: you mightn´t even know what "their language" is); and when you explain it "in your language" the message won´t reach them, either.
Which leaves me with the question: Why do you want to explain it to random people, in the first place?
And the second question: Are there possibly better ways of demonstrating the beauty of your views than explaining them in words?

I get what you're saying about wearing a cross; I guess if you're wearing a statement of your faith then you shouldn't be surprised if someone 'reacts' to it. I do think that where I'm from, people tend to react to Christians in a much more negative way than is perhaps necessary. When I've been wearing a cross, it's mostly for my own sake and not to provoke others.

I agree, it's not 'me' they are attacking per se, but their view of Christianity. It becomes personal, though, when they say it's unintelligent (or something similar) to believe in God. I should point out that this doesn't happen that much, but in certain social settings and these people are not complete strangers but acquaintances. I mostly shrug it off though, to be honest - still, I was interested to know how to respond in those situations.

As for the second question; of course, some things are better explained through actions than words... words can only get us so far.

 

[graphite412]

I would recommend touching up on apologetics. A book I would recommend is "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man," by Fr. Seraphim Rose. He helps break down the false philosophy behind the modern atheistic, scientific community which is a real eye opener. It really shows that the modern atheists don't have any solid ground on which to stand. I would also check out some of the resources that are cited in that book, and the book does have great notes and appendices. He also discusses a little bit about how scientific rational thought is inherently incapable of formulating any views about a God Who is not a part of the created order. You also might like studying about the Shroud of Turin, which I believe was the actual burial cloth of Christ. There are a couple youtube videos out there that are great.

Since God is not material, science can't even begin to investigate Him, but God is incarnate through Christ so if we are to find any scientific study into God it would have to be through the incarnation of Christ. The Shroud of Turin would be a good example of something to be investigated, but even then it could be "proved" to be the burial cloth of Christ. An even then Christ couldn't be "proven" to be God. A lot of the Pharisees couldn't grasp that Jesus was God incarnate when Jesus was doing all of the miracles before their eyes, and instead they attributed the workings of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Even after His resurrection they didn't repent after hearing of the miracle from the guards.

Another thing that could help is to develop your understanding of the faith, especially by reading the writings of the Church Fathers. Many times atheists mock Christians by painting a false view of God, and then mock their own false representation of God as to somehow disproved that God exists. Such philosophizing is nonsense. The books by the Saints will help. When reading the books of the Saints, you will pick up on the wisdom writings that help develop your heart and get a greater understanding of the scriptures. I also find that the more I have an understanding of the importance of the heart the less importance I give to empirical science. For example scientist might find new ways to fit computers into smaller packages or make new inventions such as bendable glass, but in the long run does is make me love my neighbor more? So atheistic scientists might brag and gloat about their inventions and progress and increase of knowledge and so on, but their hearts can be black as Hell and be egoistical maniacs. One can be ever learning and never come to a knowledge of the Truth. So our focus should be more on our hearts and love toward Christ Who is Truth. In the West we tend to view the mind as the faculty to comprehend truth, but it is searched out more so in our hearts than in our minds.

 

[Chesterton]

Err, no. The entire "fight" thing is your idea of a conversation, not mine.

I don't understand why you want to paint me as a bad guy for engaging in argument and debate. It's an ancient human practice and goes on in courtrooms and universities and bars and such all around the world today. I've seen you do it too.

I think the operational term so far was "faith", not "idea".

Oh okay, thanks for clarifying. Ideas generally are okay to discuss, just "shut up about your religion" and don't provoke people by wearing a cross. I get it. I hear that's the prevalent mood in Europe these days.

 

[quatona]

I don't understand why you want to paint me as a bad guy for engaging in argument and debate.

That would be your value judgement, not mine. I´m just describing what you are doing and the criteria you are explicitly operating with. It´s not how I want to approach these questions. That doesn´t make you a bad guy, it makes our approaches incompatible.
You are free and welcome to pursue debate about faiths to your heart´s desire, just not with me. As you correctly observed, there are plenty of people here who will happily participate in that game.
(As you may or may not have noticed, this thread isn´t in the discussion&debate section, though.)

Oh okay, thanks for clarifying. Ideas generally are okay to discuss, just "shut up about your religion" and don't provoke people by wearing a cross. I get it.

Neither of it was what I said nor meant, at all. I can see, though, why a person who is in fight mode can project his own attitude into my words and arrive at those misrepresentations.

Please find yourself someone else to have a fight with. Thank you.

 

[isilmë]

I would recommend touching up on apologetics. A book I would recommend is "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man," by Fr. Seraphim Rose. He helps break down the false philosophy behind the modern atheistic, scientific community which is a real eye opener. It really shows that the modern atheists don't have any solid ground on which to stand. I would also check out some of the resources that are cited in that book, and the book does have great notes and appendices. He also discusses a little bit about how scientific rational thought is inherently incapable of formulating any views about a God Who is not a part of the created order. You also might like studying about the Shroud of Turin, which I believe was the actual burial cloth of Christ. There are a couple youtube videos out there that are great.

Since God is not material, science can't even begin to investigate Him, but God is incarnate through Christ so if we are to find any scientific study into God it would have to be through the incarnation of Christ. The Shroud of Turin would be a good example of something to be investigated, but even then it could be "proved" to be the burial cloth of Christ. An even then Christ couldn't be "proven" to be God. A lot of the Pharisees couldn't grasp that Jesus was God incarnate when Jesus was doing all of the miracles before their eyes, and instead they attributed the workings of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Even after His resurrection they didn't repent after hearing of the miracle from the guards.

Another thing that could help is to develop your understanding of the faith, especially by reading the writings of the Church Fathers. Many times atheists mock Christians by painting a false view of God, and then mock their own false representation of God as to somehow disproved that God exists. Such philosophizing is nonsense. The books by the Saints will help. When reading the books of the Saints, you will pick up on the wisdom writings that help develop your heart and get a greater understanding of the scriptures. I also find that the more I have an understanding of the importance of the heart the less importance I give to empirical science. For example scientist might find new ways to fit computers into smaller packages or make new inventions such as bendable glass, but in the long run does is make me love my neighbor more? So atheistic scientists might brag and gloat about their inventions and progress and increase of knowledge and so on, but their hearts can be black as Hell and be egoistical maniacs. One can be ever learning and never come to a knowledge of the Truth. So our focus should be more on our hearts and love toward Christ Who is Truth. In the West we tend to view the mind as the faculty to comprehend truth, but it is searched out more so in our hearts than in our minds.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me and give me the recommendations and such a comprehensive answer to my question. I agree with you that it's through the heart that we gain true knowledge about these things and we have to go about it the right way.

I've just recently begun to read about Fr. Seraphim Rose and have been meaning to get some of his books. I also want to read the writings of the Church Fathers and learn more about the Saints. There’s a lot to discover, that’s for sure.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I will agree that your (re)actions speak louder than words in such a case.

I love the quote from St. Seraphim of Sarov, who said, "Acquire the Holy Spirit (the spirit of peace) and thousands around you will be saved."

 

[isilmë]

-